Court Directs Notional Absorption From 1990, Orders Registrar to Adjudicate Salary and Family Pension Claims

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal disposed contempt petitions arising from alleged non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 31.08.2017 in the batch titled Krishna Nand Yadav & others v. Magadh University & others, and heard a challenge to the implementation of an absorption order in respect of a deceased college employee. The petitions, filed by Premshila Kuer, sought compliance with directions relating to the notional absorption, salary, family pension and retiral benefits of her late husband Ayodhya Prasad.

The Court held that the deceased employee must be treated as absorbed with effect from 12.02.1990 and directed a fact‑finding adjudication by the University Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor to determine actual working, salary arrears and entitlement to family pension. The Court recorded that it was “inclined to repel the arguments of the petitioner that the absorption of the deceased employee may be treated from the date of declaring the college as constituent college” and gave detailed directions for adjudication, payment and recovery. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the foregoing, in our view, deceased Ayodhya Prasad be treated as absorbed with effect from 12.02.1990 and counting his service notionally, the petitioner is entitled for the salary of the deceased employee on which he had already worked and family pension and all consequential retiral benefits." The Court further noted that “the issue regarding payment of family pension was not an issue” in the earlier orders of 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019 and 12.02.2021, and directed the University to decide the claim uninfluenced by those orders.

Background

The dispute arose from the absorption claim of Ayodhya Prasad, who had been appointed as Lab In‑charge at R.L.S.Y. College. A One‑Man Commission headed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) allowed the claim by order dated 13.05.2016, which this Court approved on 31.08.2017 subject to the employee furnishing a declaration about continuous service and non‑employment elsewhere. B.R. Ambedkar University initially recorded absorption with effect from 13.05.2016, but after noting that Ayodhya Prasad had died on 09.02.2012 the University issued a corrigendum dated 19.09.2018 changing the date of absorption to 12.02.1990 and treating the period until death as service notionally for retiral and consequential benefits. A later attempt by the University to treat the date of absorption as 09.02.2012 was not accepted by the State. The petitioner alleged non‑compliance of this Court’s directions and filed contempt petitions.

The Court found that issues of actual working, payment of salary and any arrears required adjudication after a fact‑finding inquiry and that contempt proceedings were not the appropriate forum to conduct such an inquiry. Relying on the principles in State of Bihar & others v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M & others (2005) 9 SCC 129, the Court directed the petitioner to submit her claim with supporting documents to the Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor. It ordered a discrete inquiry, with due opportunity to the petitioner, the college and State representatives, and required a reasoned order on salary and arrears within three months of receiving the claim. The Court directed that the family pension claim be decided counting the period of service from the notional date of absorption, “uninfluenced by the orders dated 11.07.2019, 07.08.2019 and 12.02.2021 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018.” After adjudication, any payments found due were to be made expeditiously within two months, and any excess payments quantified could be recovered by the university/college/state following prescribed procedure. The Court clarified that parties dissatisfied with the Registrar/Vice‑Chancellor’s orders could approach the High Court as permissible.

Case Details: Case No.: CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 103-104 OF 2019 in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2788-2789 OF 2017 Case Title: PREMSHILA KUER v. DR. AMRENDRA NARAYAN YADAV & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not reported] For the Respondent(s): [Not reported]